Lives in United Kingdom london, United Kingdom
Joined on Aug 5, 2001


Total: 42, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
In reply to:

straylightrun: What did I just read?

The trouble though is that reviews are not really going to tell you which camera is right for you - you need to use it to find out the control dial is half an inch to the left of where your thumb is comfortable.

Link | Posted on Jan 22, 2016 at 17:50 UTC
On article Nikon fills in the blanks on professional grade D5 DSLR (538 comments in total)
In reply to:

vFunct: These are real cameras, for real photographers.

Let the amateurs, the poseurs, the untalented, the beginner, the retiree, and the frail and weak pathetic girly-men carry their laughable mirrorless to occasionally play photographer with.

Meanwhile, actual photographers will go ahead and use a real camera like this.

If you're going to use a mirrorless camera, and not get laughed at in the face, it better be a large-format 4x5 or 8x10.

Actual photographers care less about what people think of their cameras and a lot more about what they think of their pictures.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2016 at 22:10 UTC
In reply to:

PatMann: Not quite 645 full frame, but close (about 93.4%). My Pentax 645 slides are about 41.5 x 56mm in image area. Certainly still a long way from 6 x 6 or 6 x 7 medium format film sizes.

Yes of course, but the term originated before there were any 35mm size digital sensors. Early DSLRS used bodies that were 35mm film bodies but with half frame sensors. Those who pined for the genuine 35mm film size referred to it as "full frame". They got their wish when the Kodak 14n (I still have mine) and the Canon 1Ds were released. The funny thing is that "full frame" means something else in CCD terminology and the use of the term for the sensor size rather than the read out method so irritated Kodak they issued a press release explaining that full frame did not mean 36x24mm...

Link | Posted on Jan 3, 2016 at 21:56 UTC
On article Phase One 645DF+ with IQ250 field test (136 comments in total)
In reply to:

DStudio: It's amazing how even on an iPad at 'article' size - without enlarging the photos - the higher quality of the Phase One comes through. The photos just look better (than what we normally see). I've always believed it was how they deliver the color - probably the bit depth helps. And Capture One certainly helps too. But whatever it is, they simply look better.

Except of course you are wrong. Vinyl is worse than CD in every technical parameter. Some people prefer vinyl but that is not because vinyl has higher fidelity but simply because they personally prefer the characteristic collection of distortions vinyl provides. There's a lovely Boston Audio Society double blind test featuring guest Ivor Tiefenbraun owner of Linn Products showing he was completely unable to detect the presence of a digital encoder added to the signal path of his own very famous turntable despite his criticisms of said encoder.

Link | Posted on Jul 10, 2015 at 20:13 UTC
In reply to:

Joed700: I would like to see APS-C cameras to disappear. During the film era, we only had 35mm SLR and point-n-shoot for most people. The APS-C breed was introduced at a time when chips were still quite expensive/lack of technology for FF DSLR. Today, FF DSLR starts at around $1600 price range while APS-C are around $1000 - $1700, which is ridiculous. The existence of APS-C somehow made the FF (old 35mm equil.) into a higher class. I don't think it will cost that much to produce FF compared to APS-C. It's just an opportunity for camera manufacturers to make more money. Point-n-shoot has it's place because they are compact and good for traveling while the APS-C are about the same size as FF DSLR; APS-C also lacks shallow DOF; not a desirable option for isolating your subject....

I also have full frame,aps-c cameras. The shallower DOF from full frame is about half a stop worth. Important perhaps in some limited situations but in many cases rather minor.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2014 at 16:56 UTC
In reply to:

whtchocla7e: The point-and-shoots are alive and well.

The Nex 3/5, the small m4/3 cams from Oly and Panny, the Nikon 1, the Q from Pentax, the premium compacts from various manufacturers?

They're all point-and-shoots in disguise. They sell in mass quantities, the majority of the buyers never purchase an additional lenses or accessories.

Your casual photographer may now have a more capable camera with interchangeable lenses (and they may not even know it!) but the point-and-shoot mentality does not change.

The definition of a point-and-shoot should be more dynamic to reflect the current state of the (lower end) camera market.

A P&S is a camera that can be set to a fully automatic condition where the photographer need not supply any technical input at all (eg focus, exposure, iso). All they have to do is point the camera in the direction of the subject and click the shutter and the camera will handle all the technical stuff. A chraitable/marketing/spin view of this is it frees the photographer to concentrate on framing and the decisive moment, a cynical (and more accurate) view is that it makes for mindless snapping by people with no skills).
As far as I am aware, just about any digital camera available except perhaps a Leica can be used in a P&S mode. Some cameras can only (practicalbly) be used as a P&S. These are the true P&S cameras, a camera like the Fuji X10 may be a compact but is exactly as much not a P&S as the D800.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2014 at 16:43 UTC
On article Opinion: Do we really need the Fuji X30? (326 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bsadvies0104: it is always a pleasure to read all the posts about a camera which is not on the marketing yet. Also i love the discussion about pixels ( the more the beter it seems), sensor size (bigger=better), lenses and so on. I have a camera with only 5 milj. Pixels and the same (size) sensor, with a hell of a lens. The Leica digilux 2. I think most readers do not print postersize pictures. Mostly 13x19 inches, which is pretty big. When you print in this size, really 12 milj pixels and only a tiny sensor like X10, 20 and 30 is more then enough, unless you are looking to expose the photos, professionally, in a gallery. My old D2 is still spot on, cristal clear. It could be much better, but do i need it, or want. I think a perfect photo, and i do not mean the composition, has only a small effect on the technical data of the camera. It is the combination of things. Lens is the most important one. This count for the early ages of photography as well it is for today. Look for that and nothing else!

Leica Digilux 2 = Panny LC1 = 5MP 2/3" sensor circa 2003

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2014 at 21:02 UTC
On article Panasonic GX7 First Impressions Review (1200 comments in total)


The 5D image is larger than the others of course. People will still want to compare resolution at 100% with the usual misleading problems because the image sizes are not identical. It will be very interesting to see if the print simulation options make a difference most will understand. Good idea though.

Link | Posted on Sep 1, 2013 at 21:07 UTC as 52nd comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

FredSpain: Black and white photography or movies are things of the past. Photographers and movie-makers used them because they had no other possibility at the time or did not kmow they existed. Technically, Color photography was possible since 1899 and color cinematography since 1926. The use of painted B&W pictures (or movies (most of Melies movies had a colorised version)) was very active in the first half of the XXth century.This artist respect the originals and do not exagerate colors. If you personally do not like it, its is your opinion but think that others have the right to think different.


Maybe a better description in the digital era might be that B&W is a thriving sub genre of photography?

Link | Posted on Aug 19, 2013 at 15:24 UTC
On article Leica announces X Vario zoom compact with APS-C sensor (757 comments in total)
In reply to:

ponyman: Just been reading this review from someone who has actually spent some time using this camera - I will be interested to see further reviews before passing judgement.

The reviewer linked above (Jono) is someone who has been a DPReview forum contributor for around 15 years and is someone I've regularly corresponded with. He has been involved with many different brands incl Oly, Pentax, Nikon, Pany, Kodak and others. He is very, very experienced at using different equipment for extended periods of time. He is not really a reviewer in the professional sense, but he is a trustworthy ordinary photographer who happens to lpve leica and does beta testing for them. If you want a better idea of where he stands to help you judge his comments, just search the DPR forum posts for "Jono Slack". .

Link | Posted on Jun 12, 2013 at 12:34 UTC
In reply to:

GeorgeZ: It MAY cost more with the OVF than the EM5?
It costs more even without it!
The EM5 now is € 1099 here with the 12-50mm, the E-P5 will cost as much but with the 14-42mm.
And if Olympus doesn't change its policy, that price will be the fixed price for the first couple of months, maybe by then the EM5 will even be further reduced.
The P5 is certainly a nice camera but Olympus is asking too much.
The PM2 can be found for almost a third of the P5, the E-PL5 for less than half- both with the same sensor/engine.
I just don't get it Olympus.

Most mirrorless cameras are overpriced compared to DSLRs- the Nikon D3200 for example.

You get compactness which is good but you pay a lot for that.

Despite the fact that Mirrorless cameras are DSLRs with the expensive mechanical/optical systems removed, that once companies have geared up to produce them, must cost a lot less to make than a DSLR they typically cost double the price for similar sensors. And they don't always have the speed and responsiveness of equivalent DSLRs (eg Fuji models).

So they all seem overpriced to me - that, or entry level DSLRs offer phenomenal value that mirrorless can't match apart for fire sale models.

Link | Posted on May 31, 2013 at 11:19 UTC
On article Just posted: Fujifilm X-E1 Review (518 comments in total)
In reply to:

chillgreg: So lets see: vs Sony NEX 5R/6

The NEX's are

- much, much less expensive
- same (similar) IQ
- significantly smaller & lighter (+pancake kit zoom & 16/20 f2.8 WA)
- adapters take almost any legacy lens
- better articulating LCD
- proper sweep panorama
- 10fps burst inc RAW
- extensive video controls
- wifi + apps (eg intervalometer, remote control via mobile devices & multishot noise reduction etc)
- touchscreen or similar spec EVF
- faster AF + PD AF
- focus peaking

One must REALLY like Fuji or retro styling to throw as much as twice the money at a bigger, heavier arguably less capable mirrorless camera. The price Fuji's asking buys a LOT of DSLR.

Food for thought.

PS DPR can you please review the Sony NEX 5R/6 and also add the 5R to the image comparison database.

In the UK the XE1 is £630, the OMD is £1000. The Nex 7 is £840. So the Fuji is considerably the cheapest.

The appeal of the Fuji (for me) is the traditional film camera like nature of the controls. I own two NEX cameras and while I find them great on a tripod I find them unusable as handheld cameras as the ergonomics are so bad.

Link | Posted on Mar 1, 2013 at 07:59 UTC
In reply to:

Reilly Diefenbach: Thanks, Amazon!

It wasn't me! I have bought lots of gear online admittedly but over the last 13 years Jessops got my money for my Coolpix 950, CP3100, KM A200, 350D, 450D, 5D, K5 as well as lenses, paper, ink, filters. Before Digital, a Bronica film outfit and Pentax spotmeter and a ton of second hand stuff. They have well out of me, my conscience is clear.

What happens to all their inventory, I wonder

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2013 at 22:22 UTC
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: Trivia, I know but it's interesting to see the words the British use for these situations. When Ilford USA imploded, that was "receivership". This time, it's administration. If Walmart employees can be associates, I guess you can call anything, anything, so long as it sounds good.

I wonder how many specialty camera stores will survive, given that cameras are now just electronic gadgets like cell phones or GPS units. All the good profit stuff like consumables and processing are pretty much history. It's tough to get by on lens pens and bags.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2013 at 21:55 UTC
In reply to:

Michael49: Silly, Silly, Silly. Leica really has lost it.

You forget the kodak 760m

Link | Posted on May 10, 2012 at 22:21 UTC
In reply to:

Jeff Seltzer: A case of "a solution looking for a problem" or "the answer to a question no one asked."

Nice job.

Thom Hogan (Nikon guru) has been preaching that camera manufacturers need to stop copying one another and look also at niche markets. He says that the market has been crying out for a dedicated B&W camera and that need has gone unfulfilled since the demise of the Kodak 760m. I don't think a high priced Leica is the ideal solution as it will beyond most people's pockets but perhaps now that Leica has broken the ground, mainstream makers will follow?

Link | Posted on May 10, 2012 at 22:16 UTC
In reply to:

ThePhilips: LOL

My first recollection about photography is my father complaining that: he has to shoot in B&W because color film and its processing costs too much and the only place which can develop the film is on the other side of the city.

I think somebody had to release B&W digital camera, if only to remind people why everybody went to color and haven't looked back much.

B&W and vignetting this days are art filters - not compromises one has to live with.

Speak for yourself. B&W isn't a technological compromise, it is an art form in its own right. In the right hands of course.

Link | Posted on May 10, 2012 at 22:13 UTC
In reply to:

mister_roboto: technically all digital cameras are "black and white" ... but this camera is totally perplexing. There's luminance values etc... but it just seems like an odd thing to make. (yes yes, I know it's a Red Dot- so rationality need not apply)

But hell what do I know- I'd love for someone to make a "student full frame" that is manual focus only, only has iso up to 3200, basic white balance, and 1/1000 or rounds about shutter speed. With only 3 lens choices, 24, 50, and 90mm. There's nothing today that equals a Pentax K1000 from back in the day for student photographers, for cost and work-ability of learning.

Because this camera has no CFA Bayer array, no demosaicing is required and as it already has no AA filter, this camera will have the same B&W resolution as a 18MP Foveon sensor i.e. equivalent to a standard sensor of about twice the pixel count. It will certainly challenge the D800 in this respect.

Because there are no colour filters it will also be more sensitive and have less noise than standard sensors.

Link | Posted on May 10, 2012 at 22:08 UTC
On photo Snowbiker in the Challenge of Challenges 2011 challenge (18 comments in total)

Of the first three places, this shot is the one that is genuine photographic art. Congratulations for such a great shot. The first and second placed shots, were clearly the most popular choices, and great examples of technical photography, I preferred this one by a mile.

It's interesting how competitions reveal public taste. My Office ran a voted photographic competition recently and I did an analysis of voting patterns. People certainly appreciate composed and well worked photographic art, but it doesn't win. Instead, pictures of fluffy animals win.

The art shots (the type of superbly visualised, composed and lit shot that most photographers dream of shooting) will receive a pat on the back but will be well down the pecking order.

The public at large seem to be particularly cool on subjects that have no living subjects. Animals seem first choice, people next best and clever graphic compositions rather distant also-rans.

Link | Posted on Jan 4, 2012 at 09:54 UTC as 5th comment | 1 reply
On article Just Posted: Sigma SD1 preview Raw and JPEG samples (88 comments in total)

For Fotopizza

There doesn't seem to be much support for your assertion about the SD14 dynamic range superiority from lab tests. It does appear that the SD14 is balanced such that it has better highlight headroom than in typical but that is at the cost of noisy shadows. I'd be interested to see your comparisons of shadow performance between the SD14 and K5.

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2011 at 16:37 UTC as 11th comment | 1 reply
Total: 42, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »